– Good afternoon. Keep eating, feel free to eat. Feel free to go to the
buffet line and have more, but we’re gonna begin the program promptly because I have promised
everyone that these programs that we end promptly at 1:30
and we don’t wanna run over that commitment. I’m Steve Susman, the
Executive Director of the Civil Jury Project at NYU that was started exactly three years, almost three years ago,
in September of 2015, in this very room. The Civil Jury Project is the is the only academic center in the country studying the
question, why jury trials are disappearing, indeed all
trials, in public courtrooms and the civil trials are
disappearing, whether we should be concerned
about that and if so, what we should be doing. We have here today to
say a word of welcome, the Dean of the Law
School, Trevor Morrison. Just in time, this is a
J-I-T dean, Dean Morrison. (group clapping) – Literally, a word of welcome. Welcome, thank you all for being here. The Civil Jury Project really
is an exciting initiative and we owe deep thanks
to Steve for inspiration behind it and all of the sweat equity he’s put into it over
these three years as well. It is an important issue to be studying. The reasons why the
phenomenon of civil juries seem to be in peril today
and what, if anything, to do about it, how to
think about improving the experience of serving on
a jury and improving trials in the civil justice
system and its effective dispute resolution
mechanism so the law school is really pleased to be
hosting the civil jury project here, thanks to the judges who joined us for this conversation
and thanks all of you for being here as well. (group clapping) – So I mean no one can argue with the fact that the right to trial
by jury was probably the most important right
that the founding fathers put in our founding documents, it’s mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence once in the Constitution and
three in the Bill of Rights. The right to jury trial is
so much a part of the DNA of the justice system in this country that there’s not a courtroom
in the country that don’t have a jury box in it. But the sad fact is that today, most of those jury boxes
sit empty most of the time. This is the number of civil and jury and bench trials
conducted per authorized federal judgeship from,
for the last 55 years. And you can see the trend,
the red line is jury trials, the blue line is bench trials. When I began this project, I had no idea that bench trials were
disappearing as fast or faster than jury trials. But they’re now down to a
average in this country, the average federal judge in this country tries about two civil jury cases a year, one bench trial and not a
whole lot more civil trials, criminal trials but criminal
trials are disappearing for a different reason. If you look at the
district in which we are sitting in the southern
district of New York and because we have
judge, a judge here from the eastern district of
New York, you can see that last year, the average
judge, federal judge from the southern district of New York tried one point nine civil trials, one point eight bench trials. The comparable numbers
in the eastern district of four point seven and one point four, I need to get out to the eastern district and find out what they
are doing that allows them to try more cases
than the southern district. But in any event, even though
that sounds extremely low, the southern district is
about average in the country for the number of jury trials
and the eastern district in fact ranks number
sixth among the districts in the country for the number
of jury trials per judge. One might explain these numbers by saying, well the number of filings has dropped and that’s true, they have dropped but if you look at this
statistic, the percentage of cases on the docket
that gets disposed of by jury trial or bench trial,
it looks just as terrible and it’s well under half of one percent across the country in the federal courts. The percentages here in
the southern district and the eastern district, these two lines show them again a downward
trend, in the state courts of New York, hard to get the statistics from the New York Supreme
Court but this is a pattern that exists and this pattern
exists around the country there’s nothing, I’ve
been around the country, this is like our 26th
jury improvement lunch so wherever I go I have these charts made and try to get as much
information as I can on the state courts where I am and the result is it
looks, you can almost use the same graph everywhere because, and I don’t even get any argument, when I began doing the
project I got argument from the judges, well
we have plenty of trials and there are few pockets
where that’s true, there’s a few circumstance,
some senior judges do nothing but try cases, they are some state courts that still have a central
docket where a few of the judges are nothing but trial
judges, they trial one case after another, as soon
as the jury goes out to deliberate, they call
up to the clerks office and another case gets sent down. But with those exceptions,
the picture is pretty much the same. One of the things we have
done at the civil jury project to give you about a five minute overview before we being our panel
discussion is to engage in empirical research as to, for example, we surveyed non-lawyers to find out, is the public really
aware of these trendlines that I’ve just shown on the screen? 80% of the people in this
country who are not lawyers according to our polling
data believe that the number of trials, the number
of trials has gone up in the last decade. Totally wrong and there are of course reasons for that, popular shows on television, movies, plenty of interest in trials
and the justice system but the fact of the matter
is that the general public is not aware that in many
federal court houses, I’m not talking about
the southern district or the east district now, but
in the other federal court houses I have been to, you
can shoot a canon through the hall during the week
and you wouldn’t hit anyone. Many of the courtrooms are
dark, not to say that the judges aren’t busy but
they’re doing something other than serving as trial judges. People say well it’s,
companies are in love with arbitration so we went
and we did an empirical study, we got some law professors
and law students at Baler to go through all the filings of material business to
business contracts that public companies have to file
with their AKs with the SEC. And this does not include
any consumer contracts but just business to business contracts and we looked through over
5,000 of these contracts to see how many contain
juror waiver clauses or mandatory arbitration
clauses and to our pleasant surprise, 57% did not so when it comes time to
litigate against each other, businesses in this country still haven’t given up on the idea that
trial by jury makes a lot of sense, they don’t have
to pay arbitrators $750 an hour, they have rights of appeal, they aren’t dealing with
arbitrators who tend to split the baby to avoid extreme results and they like and we have then by looking at those contracts,
called the General Counsel to ask them was this just an accident or did you intentionally
prefer jury trial? And from the General Counsel of exon to the General Counsel
so the largest companies in this country, they sing the praises of trial by jury, of course
except in consumer cases. We have now completed
hosting five full day workshops of how to improve jury trials here at the law school,
we held two last week, we have now had 150
state and federal judges from around the country
come to NYU and spend a day of their time, they are very busy, but the judges in this
country are interested. I tell the trial lawyers
this because it may not appear to everyone that that’s the case but they want to try more cases, they want to figure out
how to try more cases, how to make trial more appealing, cheaper, more reliable and more efficient. We have as I said this
is our 25th or 26th lunch like this, we have
planning for this fall for Boise, I gotta go to Boise
on Friday for these lunches, Palm Beach the following week, Fort Lauderdale, Oakland,
Chicago and Des Moines. It’s taken a lot of time,
we have a small staff but we are doing it because
people in these lawyers wanna hear from jurors
what their experience is and from judges about
what their experience and their point of view is. We have over 275 state
and federal judges across the country who are judicial advisors, we have 65 law professors
who have done research and jury studies and 35 jury consultants who are advisors to the project. We maintain a website for lawyers and judges and academics and everything including the
video tape of this program is on this website by tomorrow
and so you can go back and see all the other
lunches and every program we’ve had and there’s a
lot of interesting things but the main website we have come up with it’s a different website. This is a website called
wethepeoplewethejury.com, this is for people who
have served on juries or who have received summons. We have found when we did
some surfing of the web at the beginning that
there are a lot of talk about juries and jury
trials in social media but it was all how to
get out of jury service. And we figured if we can
somehow get hold of these people and direct them to this website, we can change attitudes about that. So you will see here there’s one portal on the far left, received a jury summons, when people go there they
are shown video testimonials, we have a juror with us
today who is for example going to help us make
one of these testimonials which’ll then we there
which basically tells people who go there, don’t
throw away your summons, you just received a summons,
you are about to have the best experience of your life. I would love to do it again
and from all over the country we have these testimonials. If you click on the button on the right of the screen that you have
recently completed jury service, we have had hundreds of people go there and fill out jury feedback
forms which we collect about what they like,
what they didn’t like, how the trial could be improved and by, we identified
those jurors, we asked them to make video testimonials
which we put on the left for those who have received a summons. The effort is to try to increase the yield of a jury summons which
is horribly low all over the country. And if they, by the
way, click in the middle they are said you shouldn’t be here, the judge tell you not
to be here, come back when the trial is over,
but they will get a lot of clicks there by the way. (group laughing) We can tell we are getting clicks there. We ask the judges who are advisors, the 275 judges who are
advisors, anyone else who will listen to us
to pass out to jurors at the end of the trial
this little card that says you can go to this site
if you want to talk about your experience. Now all over the country,
judges keep different kinds of questionnaires from
jurors, they informally talk to them after trials open
but there’s no uniformed system getting juror responses,
getting the questionnaire responses and finding out
what the jurors really think. And then we go to social media, we have an active practice
jury matters hashtag to try to find people
who are trying to get out of jury service and
encourage ’em not to do so. You have, we, put at your table I hope everyone got a
copy but if not we’ll talk about it later, a one page chart of the reasons we think, we’ve been able to identify
about 17 or 18 reasons the jury trials are
disappearing in this country, we figured it made most sense
to try to categorize them between those that we
can do something about which are on the right
and those that we probably can’t do something about short of changing the composition of the Supreme Court or having an active congress
passed or some other legislative rule change
but the eight reasons on the right side of the
chart are things we probably can do something about. Decreasing the expense, making trials happen quicker, improving the reliability of trials, et cetera, et cetera and so we are go to judges and I will
ask the judges on the panel I’ve sent this to them in advance so they can tell us have
we left anything out and have we properly
categorized what is here? We are hearing a lot these
days about the importance of the independence of the judiciary and how that, the rule of
law depends on an independent judiciary. In the federal courts we
have federal judges here today, the federal judges
have lifetime 10 year and that’s supposed to
assure their independence. But 98% of the cases in
this country are tried in state court and about
90% of those judges are elected, many in where
they identify and part of elections where they
identify as republicans or democrats. And the study is done
by the Brennan Institute here at NYU have pretty
conclusively established that if a judge depends on the electorate to either get his bench
or hold onto her bench, that judge is likely to be favor the party that he or
she perceives might be at most assistance to them in staying on the bench or getting on the bench. That’s kind of a frightening
statistic and if it’s true, I have no reason to believe
that research was bad research but if it’s
true, it just underlines the importance for having
jurors in this country. That’s why our founding
fathers wanted them in the first place to protect the average citizen from the tyranny
of judges whether they were elected by the people
or appointed by the king and so now I would like one of the, we were supposed to have,
this was supposed to be mainly hearing from jurors today but it’s very difficult to get jurors. I think we have more trouble in New York than elsewhere, thank god
we have one juror here and I’d like to ask that
juror Mr Connolly to come up and the judges who have
agreed to serve on the panel. Judge Lasnik who many of you may not know because he is from Seattle, Washington, he was from the western
district of Washington, he is a judicial advisor,
he helped me put on, now we have had two of
these lunches in Seattle, that Judge Lasnik has been involved in and he was at our federal
judge workshop yesterday. Everyone knows Judge
Furman and Judge Daniels, Judge McMahon and. – [McMahon] It’s McMahon but that’s okay. – [Susman] Mc-Mahon. – [McMahon] Mister Suss-man. (group laughing) – [Susman] Fair enough. And Judge Garaufis from
the eastern district. – [Garaufis] That’s pretty good. (group laughing) he did okay with the eastern district. – [Susman] Well I hope it’s good ’cause I asked your law clerk who is our research
fellow now, your former law clerk to tell me how
to properly pronounce your name so let me begin with asking our real juror, to tell us about your
experience and just kind of what you thought, what
you liked and didn’t like. – My, I’ve served on federal trial Judge Furman presided,
just a couple of weeks ago. My experience from the time I walked into the jury selection room was very welcoming, very
professional, I have to say it was almost like
scripted that every person thanked us every time we walked in a room, including Judge Furman, and you know breakfast
was provided when we were deliberating and I would say there was never an issue with us not feeling
important and welcome. – [Susman] Okay and what did you dislike about the experience the most? – [Furman] Present company excluded. (group laughing) – I did have a complaint
for Judge Furman after. It was an unusual case,
it was a civil case where the bulk of it,
the facts of the case had already been decided in a prior trial and we were there as I understand it, we were able to question
Judge Furman which was great afterwards ’cause
we had so many questions but we discovered after the fact that it was a technicality, if I’m correct, that caused the award not
to be made of the time most of the facts were determined. So as we discussed it in the jury room, we had a math problem, you know which was how much to award and given this long list of assumed facts and
some that we were able to hear during testimony during the trial. So you asked what was the frustration? Number one, we didn’t know
beforehand why we were there, in other words, we didn’t
know really why this judgment wasn’t made, you
know at the time of all the facts were resolved, we
found that out kind of after. That was a distraction
but I’m not sure it really changed our decision. But it was a frustration
because there was quite a bit of testimony I guess in fairness that we got to hear first hand
to make our award decision so there was a lot of
kind of boring testimony that was seemed to be
very redundant to us, in fact one of the jurors
passed out, you know sleeping during part of the trial
and he was dismissed so. – [Susman] So I know,
so the typical juror, I’ve now met hundreds of
jurors at lunches like this, the complaint I hear over and over again is it was just too repetitive, fair? Is that a comment you had? – [Connolly] It can be more specific yes. – [Susman] Do you think
the trial lasted longer than it needed to last? – [Connolly] Yes. – [Susman] Alright, typical. So judges, Judge Furman, how can we stop repetition? – So number one just to
fill in some of the blanks, it was a retrial on damages only, I had granted a motion for a new trial but limited it to the question of damages so I think part of what
the jurors didn’t fully understand at the outset, we
did talk after the verdict was you know a, why that
wasn’t resolved in the first trial which is perfectly understandable but for reasons that I’m
sure many here understand, I didn’t feel like I should
explain that to the jury at the outset and b, I think
Mr Connolly in particular maybe felt that in so far
as they were being asked to fix a damages award,
why did there have to be a lot of testimony
concerning the conduct of the defendant and the
reason for that is they were fixing punitive damages
as well as compensatory and obviously therefore
needed to understand the sort of gravity of the conduct in order to make that determination but I think that maybe in retrospect I
could or should have done a better job of explaining that. I don’t think, I mean I told the jury that it would last about up to two weeks, my practice, I didn’t tell
Mr Connolly afterwards is always to over-estimate
because of my experience juror’s are always happy
when the trial ends more quickly than your
tell them and always angry when it lasts longer than you tell them and it ended actually in
only three or four days so in that respect I
think it actually went even more quickly than I had expected. I think part of, I mean
what I dislike most is cases where there’s a lot of testimony by video tape and I would
say about half the witnesses in this trial were presented
by video tape deposition. And I think those in
particular I find you know jurors have the most
trouble kind of focusing and paying attention,
it’s just a little less exciting than a live
witness and makes it harder for them to- – [Susman] How about you
Mr Connolly how about video tape? – So yeah there were
complaints among the jurors about the video testimony
but I don’t think we had as hard a time with
watching video as much as the questioning included just you know what did they do in high school and you know just we’re
listening to expert testimony or testimony of the employees
and we just didn’t need you know half of the video
tape so even the video could have been shortened. – [Susman] Judge McMahon. – So what you do if
you’re an activist judge, I’m an activist judge I’ll
confess it during trial management, you should
just cut that stuff off. You just stop it, we
don’t need to hear that. Not necessary to know about your children, move on we’ve heard that twice, let’s go, let’s move let’s work
let’s change let’s this, let’s that, and in my experience, jurors appreciate a judge who, who takes the lawyers in hand and says we’re not gonna make this any
longer than it needs to be. When lawyers tell me at
final pretrial conference that they’re gonna call
three or four witnesses on a particular topic,
I tell them they’re not in a civil case, much less
leeway in a criminal case. When lawyers give me a
exhibit list that’s yeah 150 exhibits long, I tell
them that we’re there, it’s 10 o’clock in the
morning, I always do all my admission of exhibits
prior to picking a jury so we’re there, it’s generally a Friday and will remain as late as necessary even ten to two and three
o’clock in the morning to deal with all of the objections to all of the exhibits,
it has never failed that when counsel hear
that, they cut the exhibits down to a manageable number. I think that a whole lot of making trials shorter and less redundant
has to do with how actively the judge manages the trial. – [Susman] So how about being, one of the innovations being suggested around the country is
that judges should set time limits. – [McMahon] I do that too. – [Susman] Each side gets so many hours essentially a test clock
where you keep track of the time? – Yeah, I won’t do that for
a two or three day trial, but for a two or three week trial, you have X number of hours on your feet. – [Susman] Okay. – [Furman] I do it for even
two or three day trial. I mean I find that it’s
helpful in advance, it gets the lawyers hopefully to cut down on their case to the bare
minimum and the essentials. – [Susman] Every lawyer
I’ve talked to that’s been in a time-limit trial loves it. I mean they hate it at
first, the idea that they have to do it ’cause it’s hard work, it is hard to make choices. But once they do it, and I’ve never been in a time-limit trial where
I haven’t given time back I mean we finished
before and you don’t play many video depositions if at all. So how about now, how about a rule that you can put whatever
you want on the exhibit list that you exchange with
the other side before you go there but anything you
put on the exhibit list, you gotta show to the jury. You can’t just put stuff on there to be quote, in evidence,
a bunch of documents. If it’s on the list,
I’m gonna make you use part of your time showing it to the jury, well how about that Judge Daniels? What do you think of that for an idea? – Well I mean I never, I
never find it necessary to set time limits or to set strict rules. Obviously there’s always
a danger that you’re gonna impose yourself where you
shouldn’t impose yourself and with the province
of the jury and lawyers complain that they don’t
get to try their cases. I think, I have more
discussion with the lawyers about what we’re gonna
anticipate and I’ve always said to lawyers that
particularly when they ask you about summations and those sort of things that I don’t put a time
limit on summations because by the time I tell you to sit down you will have lost the
jury long before that and so I, you know, I usually wanna know what they’re gonna do,
hope long they reasonably think it’s gonna take, whether
that makes a lot of sense to me, if it doesn’t make
a lot of sense to me, I will say it doesn’t
make a lot of sense to me. I think. – [Susman] So why should
any closing argument last more than an hour? – [Daniels] It shouldn’t, it shouldn’t. – [Susman] So why don’t you give us guide, why don’t you just tell us? – Well. – [Susman] These are the
rules you’ve gotta play by counsel. – Mean it’s a matter of style, I think part of the
problem is that we have less lawyers that are trial lawyers and who really have the
skills to do it in an hour. – [Susman] We’ll come to that. – You know I think we’re losing that. I think lawyers are not
getting the trial experience that they’re used to. I think they’re not
even training themselves to try cases like they used to. When I first tried a case as a lawyer I went to the National
Institute for Trial Advocacy to figure out what I
was supposed to be doing and I think we don’t get a lot of that. – [Susman] Judge Lasnik
do you set a time limits? – I do not set time limits, I use shaming more than anything. (group laughing) you know I start out jury selection on the first day when
we take the first break I say to the jurors, my wife
is a kindergarten teacher and we have incredibly similar jobs, we both deal with
unbelievable juvenile behavior and then I look at the lawyers and I say, and we both
get to say when people can go to the bathroom, and
you can go to the bathroom now. And I start you know getting
a rapport with the jurors where they’re looking for
someone in the courtroom they can trust, right? They can’t trust the
lawyers ’cause the lawyers are trying to win. But they wanna trust the judge so, and I use humor a lot in the court to relax jurors but I also
use a great deal of sarcasm and so the first day of
trial is often painful because the lawyers
are going way too long, the juror’s looking frustrated, they’re repeating things
and then at some point you know I’ll say to the
jury, when the counsel ask the question for the fourth time, is there anyone on the jury
that doesn’t know the answer to this question? And they shake their
heads and I say, counsel, do you think that these people are stupid or do you think they’re deaf or you know why are you doing this? And the shaming process
leads them to get sharper so I’m a combination of
Judge McMahon in the sense I’m very active but also
Judge Daniels in the sense that I try not to set the limits and I’ve never needed to
because I’ve never had a case go as long as the lawyers have said, never and I’ve been wearing
the black for 29 years, nine as a state court judge
and 20 as a federal judge but we’re talking about the same thing, we just have different
styles of how to get there. – [Susman] So now you mentioned
your wife’s a teacher, I wanna, have y’all seen
Order in the Classroom? – [McMahon] No. – [Susman] You will love it. Here it comes, it’s very
short and judges you may have to get, I don’t know if
we can turn this around at all. – [McMahon] Yeah I can’t see anything. – [Furman] We can just walk over. – [Susman] Yeah, can y’all turn it up? – [McMahon] It’s okay
we’ll get up, we’ll get up. – [Narrator] I realize that
you were summoned to this class without signing up for
it and you haven’t even been told what this class is about. Nevertheless let me tell you
what the rules and procedures are, this course should take a few days or a few weeks, I’m not sure. This course could be taught
by 10 or 20 different teachers and will involve subjects
you know nothing about. In fact, if you knew
something about the subject to be taught, you couldn’t take the class. (group laughing) Each teacher will give
you relevant information about the subject, information you’ll need for the final exam. However, I will not tell
you what is important and listen, not only must you determine what is consequential or
not, you will also figure out which teachers have told you the truth and remind yourself of
what you’ve heard or what you thought the most important. Also, you may not ask your
teachers any questions. (group laughing) Nor are you allowed to talk
to your fellow students about anything the teachers have said even though this is
normally how you go through a college course or life for that matter. And while this might be helpful to have a notebook for notes, course
materials, or giving an idea of what the final exam might be about. However we will let you
look at some materials while one of the teachers
is lecturing on another important aspect of the course. (group laughing) Now I won’t be telling you what
is important in this course or what the rules are for the final exam until all teachers have
given their lectures. When I do explain the final exam I will spend only 15 or 20 minutes on it and I will probably use
unfamiliar or technical terms that I will not explain. The final will involve
only one or two questions and you will have one sheet of
paper to write the answer on. You can then discuss the
course with each other but bear in mind you
will all have to agree on the same answer to receive
credit for the course. You will also be locked in this room until you reach agreement. Oh and one more thing, depending on your answer,
someone you don’t even know will either win or lose. Any questions? Good, let’s begin. This will be a rewarding
experience for all. (group laughing) – [Susman] Thank you. – [McMahon] I’ve seen that. – [Susman] So that by the way is a video done in 1998. It was at a time in this
country where there was a lot of talk about jury
reform and as a result of a video like this, it’s made by the International Association of Defense Counsel, probably
to show to, I dunno, show their corporate clients
about why they didn’t want jury trials. It’s hard to tell the purpose of it but as a result of things like this, the ABA, the American
College of Trial Lawyers made these recommendations in 2000, 2005 for changes, time limits,
allowing jurors to ask questions. Now some of them have taken hold, I haven’t been anywhere
where they don’t allow jurors to take notes. – [McMahon] In New York
State Supreme Court. – [Susman] There’s an. That’s a wonderful question
I need to ask you that. When I told the law school I thought it would be great to
have a project like this right here, close to all
the judges on Foley Square, I thought this’ll be an ideal place. Federal judges here are
very interested in trials, the federal judges are
interested in jury reform indicated by the fact that y’all are here. But in other states it’s
exactly the opposite. The state judges are very interested, the state judges are more
reform-minded in fact, doing different things,
adopting different rules. So why, what’s going on in New York why is New York, is it
something in the water here? (group laughing) – [McMahon] No no, no. I’m actually kind of
uniquely qualified to answer that question because
when we had jury reform in New York, I ran it. But that was back in 1993
when I chaired something called the jury project for then new Chief Judge Judith Kay and we were able to ram through 82, 82
changes to how jury service, back office, front office
and experience for the jurors worked in New York. Our problem is that so many things in new York are dictated by statute, not just custom but statute. The reason that you can’t
take notes as a juror in the state of New York is
that it’s in the New York state law and judges have gotten comfortable with that over the years, some of us, I was a state
court judge for a while, some of us bucked that, I broke the law. I gave them notebooks. But most judges are,
they’ve drunk the cool aid, they, you don’t give the jurors notebooks because they might focus
on what it is they thought was important instead of
looking at all the evidence, fancy that. So it’s a political thing but it took an extraordinary woman with an extraordinary amount of charisma to make major changes in
the jury system in New York and that happened what, 25 years ago and you know it’ll be another
25 years before there’s an equally charismatic person
who needs to do that again. – [Susman] So let’s talk
about a few of the things the, asking questions. Giving the jurors, did you
have a right to ask question, did you, in your trial did you even know about having a right to ask questions? – [Connolly] I don’t think so, no. – [Susman] Judge Furman do
you let them ask questions? – [Furman] No. – [Susman] Would you
let ’em ask questions, if I tell, if I can. – [Furman] If you tell me to? (group laughing) – [Susman] No I’m not gonna tell you to. But I’m gonna tell, Judge Lasnik? – [Lasnik] Yeah this is one that Steve and I had a
confrontation in Seattle, friendly, that I don’t want
the jurors to ask questions and why but at the last conference we did with judges, I was impressed
a judge from Minnesota Judge Tunheim has a pre-printed form, the jurors can fill out the question and put it in a box, he can look at it, show it to the lawyers,
see if they wanna ask it and you know I’m willing to consider that next jury trial as something I will try. – [Susman] Great, Judge Garaufis. – Well I’d be concerned if I received one of these requests, you
know how would I deal with it? Would I require that both
sides agree to permit the question? Would it be sufficient
if one side said yes and the other side said no and I said yes, would that be appropriate? It would be a question of
experimentation on my part and then of course as the issue about how many questions are you gonna get? You may have an activist
jury and you may have a passive jury and sometimes when it might be a passive jury, I mean the judge can
ask questions if there are matters that should
be brought out and we tell the jurors that and so, I look upon it as I am acting in the place of the jury where there’s an important question that needs to be
asked and hasn’t been asked and needs to be answered
and hasn’t been answered and so I’m doing it on behalf of the jury. But I might be willing to experiment in a short trial and see where it goes but I don’t think that I am facing a four-week trial or an eight-week trial in an anti-trust case and I’m busy having the jurors ask questions along the way. The idea that I might
have to retry this case you know looms in my head if I get a message from my colleagues at the next level that I
somehow acted inappropriately in allowing certain
questions, not allowing the other questions,
you know I’d rather have Judge Furman experiment in this case. (group laughing) – [Susman] So let me just suggest to you, suggest that I think now about 50% of the federal judges in the country are allowing jurors to ask questions, that’s my gut reaction
going around the country. There’s some states, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota that it’s in the rules, you have to, they have to be allowed to ask questions. – [McMahon] Yeah well Arizona was the, the cornerstone of foreman. – [Susman] It was the epicenter. – [McMahon] Arizona state
court, it was the epicenter of everything. – [Susman] So, but everyone,
the lawyers who are in trials, I’ve been to trials in,
it’s done in Texas now, routinely and frankly
every time I’ve been to, we love it, the lawyers love it. You avoid repetition because
you know what the jurors are thinking a little, okay. You know where they are confused. We’re sitting there with a blank slate, we don’t know whether we
need to repeat ourselves five times to get through or not. The questions give us a sign,
where there is confusion where we need to ask another question and so every case I’ve had,
I’ve never had a lawyer who doesn’t like it. So and let me ask you
another question then which is, so I’m gonna be
able to convince lawyers probably quicker than I
can convince federal judges that this is a good practice. So if one of these lawyers here and I know we’re on the opposite side
of the case and come in to see you Judge Furman and say, Judge we would like to have
the jury have the ability to ask questions, would
you agree to do that? – [Furman] I would be. – [Susman] Would you think
consider it, seriously? – I would consider it for sure. I would say in theory I’m
not opposed to this practice, it’s more I have practical concerns. Number one, how to implement
it, how does it work? Do you, you know, do you get
the questions from the jurors, do the jurors have to agree
together that they want to ask a question or is it
up to any individual juror in which case, it may or may not reflect a widespread view on the jury. Do you review the
questions with the lawyers? What happens as Judge
Garaufis said, the lawyers don’t agree with respect to a question, do you get to make that decision? So there’s sort of practical
things that I think need to be thought through. Second is time. I was talking to a lawyer
at the table before the panel started who
said a colleague of mine does permit this and after,
at the end of each witness, they would get questions from the jurors, they’re retreat to the robing room, have a 15 minute
conference and then go back to the courtroom, you know, to me, adding 15 minutes at
the end of every witness where the jury has to sit in the box, have no idea how long you’re gonna be, I mean my view is once
the jury’s in the box, their time is the most
valuable thing in the courtroom and I’m gonna do everything in my power to make sure that trial
ends as quickly as possible, within reason and allowing
lawyers to try their own cases and I would
just have concerns about institutionalizing a practice that just causes repetitive delays
and you know things outside of the hearing of the juror. So all of which is to say,
I would be open to it, I would think about it and
the third reason I would say is just path dependency
it’s not a very good reason, but candidly, I’ve never done it I would think I would
need to think through all these things and that takes time and when you have 200 to
500 cases on your docket depending on how you count,
it’s just so much time you can devote to any
one thing and it’s sorta hard to think through these things so. – This is where I wanna tell
the famous federal judge joke, how many federal judges does it take to change a light bulb? And there are two answers. One is just one, he holds up the lightbulb and the entire world revolves around him. And the other is change, change? Who said anything about change? (group laughing) and you know I totally feel the same way Judge Furman did and that’s
why I’ve never done it. My colleagues that do it say
it never happens like that, it doesn’t happen after every witness, it doesn’t slow things down,
it actually makes things work better and at some
point, I’m gonna have to say, change okay I’ll try it and you know it’s getting close. – [Susman] So it’s always
been kinda curious to me too, maybe someone has an explanation. State court judges who are subject to election seem to want, be more willing toe experiment with things even though it may upset
lawyers who appear before them than federal judges who,
you can, you’re the law, all these innovations, I am
confident every innovation we are preaching for jury trials, you have the power, the
federal judge has the power to do it and you’re there for life. So, why is it that. – We are such a conservative organization and by that I mean you
look at the leadership of the federal judiciary
and it’s ordure people and set in their ways people who get to be chairs of committees, Nick
finally got old enough to be a chair of a committee. – [Garaufis] I had to become 70. – Yes, yeah no seriously and you go the US Supreme Court
and you know there’s people who this is the way we’ve always done it. You try to get change in
the judicial conference, well who sits on the judicial conference which is the governing
body of the federal courts? It’s the chief circuit judges
from each of the circuits, well how do you get to
be chief circuit judge? The most senior of the
active circuit judges who is never been chief before, which tends to put people
on a chief circuit judge. – [McMahon] Well I’m on
the judicial conference. (group laughing) and I’m not the chief circuit judge. – No district judges are
elected in different ways, I was on the judicial
conference but changing. – [Furman] She’s the chief district judge. – Yeah, answering it as
a member of the judicial conference, just doesn’t happen. It’s the executive committee
where all the power is and those people are
hand-selected by the chief justice so we have a tendency to
say we don’t do change well and we’re sort of
guardians of a history of the federal judge being a, an organization that doesn’t change. Whereas in state court,
things move quickly. – [Susman] I think also,
someone pointed this out to me at one of our workshops last week that state judges because
every juror is a voter, is very, much more
concerned about making life pleasant and happy for jurors
than federal judges tend to be, I don’t know if
there’s any truth to that. – [McMahon] There is no, we are both old New York state judges. – [Susman] There’s no truth to that? – There is zero truth to that and I, if you did a survey
of people who have served on both state and federal
juries in New York City, you would find 100% of them
prefer their federal experience. – [Furman] That’s certainly
my experience as well. Let me throw out one
hypothesis and I don’t know if this is right with
respect to all courts but certainly, I think some
if it may depend on the docket system, right, so
we carried out dockets of again, depending on how you count anywhere from, or depending on the judge, anywhere from 200 to 600 cases. You know at any given time,
I have 20 to 40 serious substantive motions that are
you know sitting on my desk that I need to make my way through. My overriding concern is
simply time management and getting cases across the finish line. I think in a lot of state court systems, they don’t, if there’s a
trial part, a judge receives a case for trial and they
don’t, they’re not carrying a docket of 300 cases that
they need to worry about, there’s maybe another
trial coming down the pipe but it’s not necessarily
their concern until it lands on their lap and given that, there may just be
differences in the pressures. – [Susman] If you have, yeah? – I would point out, the
committee I’m chairing is on intra circuit
assignments where judges in one circuit are we going to serve in other circuits, most
of the judges so far in my experience in the
year plus that I’ve been on this committee want to
be on, a sit by designation on the circuit court in another circuit, usually in Pasadena. (group laughing) are you going? Anyway, but the fact of the matter is that we have a list of maybe
over 100 trial judges in the federal system who
are willing to try cases in other districts and
circuits and there really isn’t a great large call for
judges to try jury trials in other circuits and I think that goes to the issue of the fact that there isn’t a demand for jury
trials in the federal system for whatever reason. So when you go back and
you look for instance, I prefer to go try a case in New Mexico or Montana and we have judges who do that but there aren’t that many opportunities to do it because there just
aren’t that many trials. – [Susman] So one of the
explanations for that at the top of the list of my two-page, two-chart list is that jury
trials are too expensive. Do you think jury trials
are more expensive than bench trials? – [McMahon] No. – [Susman] I agree. – [McMahon] Good. – [Garaufis] No I agree with that too. – [Susman] Do you think. – Same discovery, same motions, same everything and
then in the bench trial you have to do all this pretrial stuff, you have to give the
judge findings of fact and conclusions of law and this and that before the trial and
you have to do a brief at the end of the trial, it’s much cheaper to try a case to a jury. – [Susman] Do you think
arbitration, discovery is any cheaper in arbitration? – [McMahon] Absolutely not. – [Susman] In trials? – [McMahon] Absolutely not. – [Susman] Most of the
arbitrators are former judges anyway so they’re kinda taking their ways of doing business to the conference room form the courtroom into
the conference room. Let me ask you this, is there anyone here,
I’ve heard this said, judges, someone heard
they heard judges say, if I had to try a case, I’m a failure. Do you think that, Judge Furman? – [Furman] No. – [Susman] ’cause you’re
concerned about time and time management. – No I mean I think that
it is not a great thing for the system at large
that the number of trials has declined as
precipitously as your graphs tend to show, I think the complication is precipitously tin any given case, it’s often more rational for the parties and the judge to resolve the case without a trial just to say that, you know given the risks
involved given the expense involved, given frankly,
there’s often a sort of you know within a band,
a reasonable outcome that can be negotiated that
it makes much more sense to resolve it in some other fashion so. And in my experience, and
there are a couple of lawyers here who have cases before
me or have even tried cases before me and so I exclude them but, I would say about half of
the cases that I’ve had that have gone to trial,
I think the lawyers just aren’t good enough to get it settled. They either can’t persuade
and explain to their clients the rationality of a
settlement or they can’t simply negotiate a settlement
and it’s almost the trials is you know a last resort. – [Susman] So but in the
70s or the late 60s when those numbers were high,
the numbers of trials per judge and the numbers,
percentage of cases, see I began trying
cases in the late 60s so I’ve been doing it for a long time. I thought the risks were
even higher than they were today, today there are caps on damages, there are limits on punitive damages, I mean has it gotten riskier really or more dangerous to try a case? I would have thought it
got safer to go to trial, they’re not, not as bad things can happen to you. – [McMahon] Well that’s made
true in Texas Mr Susman. (group laughing) we don’t have those things here. – [Susman] You don’t
have that in New York? – We don’t have caps
on damages in New York, we don’t have caps on punitive damages. – [Susman] No you just
have interlocutory appeal so anyone to file a case. – In state court we do indeed
have interlocutory appeals that make cases go on
and on and on and on. – [Susman] New York happens
to be the only place where I would rather
file a plaintiff’s case in federal court than state court, which is saying something,
of all the states. Let me ask the question
about jury instructions. I mean the students up there were aghast at a lot of things but one of the things they were particularly
aghast at was that they wait until the final exam to be told what the questions are
gonna be and receive any guidance on instructions basically. So one of the proposed, one of the recommendations
and all these recommendations I’m talking about now
have been on the books for 20 years, I mean it’s
not like I’m inventing them, is a judge that should give
substantive instructions at the beginning of the
case rather than at the end of the case, and substantive
I mean more than just who has the burden of proof
and how you judge credibility. – [Lasnik] You don’t mean rather than, you mean in addition to? – [Susman] Well. – [McMahon] ’cause we
have to do it at the end, I think it’s a great idea
to do it at the beginning but we’re kind of stuck
with the problem that in federal courts, we must
also do them at the end. So reading ’em twice is. – [Susman] So one of the
things, one of the things that’s fascinating about this project, what I’ve found going
around is that judges even in the same courthouse do
not know what’s going on the chambers next to them, you don’t sit and watch
what another judge is doing. And so one of the
workshops, Tom Martin who’s a chief judge of the district of Kansas says his preliminary instructions
are his final instructions he does not give ’em again, I mean he gives ’em at
the beginning of the case and that’s it. And he may cross, remember he
said that, he told us that, how does he get away with that? – [Lasnik] He’s in Kansas. (group laughing) – [Susman] So Mr Connolly, in your case would you have wanted it at the beginning of the case, more instructions? – I think Judge Furman
did an excellent job of preparing us to make the decision in the beginning we were
aware of what our job was and it was repeated at the end as well. But all along, we had
you know great respect for the judge and the process. – [Susman] Do any of you set cases for trial early in the discovery process or do you wait till the
case gets trial-ready? – [Lasnik] We set ’em early in
the case management schedule right at the beginning. – [Susman] At the beginning of discovery? – [Lasnik] We’re about 18 months out. – [Susman] How about southern district, eastern district what’s done in? – Different judges do different things, some set ’em early, I don’t, I wait until the discovery is done. But I have very tight, nine month timeline on discovery, rocket docket discovery. So we can’t go on and on and
on and on and on and on, yeah. – [Susman] Okay. – And then when I give
’em a trial date it’s about four weeks in the future, that’s it. – [Susman] Have any of you judges, it occurs to me that one
of the most expensive parts of a jury trial is the need to prepare a long pretrial order
in which you do a lot of unnecessary work like list
your designate your deposition excepts way in advance. Always 99% of the stuff
that’s designated doesn’t get shown or read to the
jury but it is a huge waste, it’s a make work
project for associates on a trial team to go read
depositions and designate them so you all require that or would you dispense with that? – Yeah I don’t expect
associates to be doing it, I expect fella that’s
gonna try the case or the woman that’s gonna try
the case to look at what the associates come up with and to decide what’s going in because if it’s on there it’s gonna get shown. – [Susman] Well. – So I actually, I think,
for final pretrial order is a great way to force
a lawyer to prepare a case and if you don’t wanna
prepare your case for trial that’s the moment you should settle. – [Susman] Do you require the lead lawyers on both sides to talk to each other? I mean you know we have all
this meeting and conferring and I just was on one for about 30 minutes before I came in here with one of the lawyers
in Seattle and my office in Seattle and these things
go on forever and ever and they’re either just
20 lawyers on the phone, I think I could have resolved the problem had I talked privately to the lawyer on the other side but
everyone had their legions on the phone, does
anyone have the rule that a meeting confer must be
between the lead lawyers? That’s okay, that’s. – Well you can do it however you want, if you wanna waste you
client’s money by bringing 10 people in a room, go right ahead, it won’t be your client for very long. – [Susman] The ABA and
the American College suggested 20 years ago that lawyers be allowed to participate in voir dere, jury selections, asking questions, in your
case, did Judge Furman do all of voir dere, or do you allow? – [Furman] I think so yes. – [Susman] Yes. – [Furman] I do not let
lawyers ask questions and I am very resistant to
the idea of letting lawyers ask questions. – [McMahon] As a lawyer you should be. – [Susman] I thought
it’d be fun to try a case before Judge Furman but I’m getting second thoughts about that. (group laughing) – Well you know Judge Daniels and I have a lot of experience with lawyers doing voir dere ’cause
by law in New York state, you can’t be changed without
the legislature of doing it, lawyers get to do some
voir dere in every case and in fact in civil cases, they do it all unsupervised,
it can go on for days. And I dunno how you feel, but having been through that experience
and having seen how bad lawyers had at voir dere, aint no lawyer ever gonna
ask a question on voir dere in my courtroom. – I experimented with
it and after my brother was voir dere in a case in a state court, and they asked him about
you know his grades when he was in high school, and he refused to answer
the questions and got hold before a judge for the fact, because he wouldn’t answer
the lawyer’s questions and he told the judge it has nothing to do with the case, we’d been
questioned for three and a half days and I would really like to try this case but I’m getting old and you know so I said, well maybe I should allow the lawyers in a
particular case that I had, it was a very sensitive case, maybe it was the wrong case to do it in but the lawyers asked that they could ask some questions so I had
asked some questions and then one of the
lawyers, defense lawyers said, I’d like to ask
to questions and I said go ahead. And the first question
was such a incredible leading question I said, I called him up to the sidebar and I
said, could you possibly put that in a more neutral way? And the lawyer said oh yes I can do that. So we went back and the
lawyer asked it differently but it was totally unacceptable and so the, we were, these
jurors were being questioned one at a time, individually in the box and there was nobody else there, no other potential jurors
there and when that question was asked and answered, I held another, I excused the juror and I said, our experiment has failed
and we’re going back to having me ask all the
questions which I did, for a good long time and
it’s not easy to ask all the questions, it’s better if someone else if they spell you and someone
else asks the questions, the lawyers but I wasn’t, I was not. – [McMahon] I want Judge
Daniels to answer this. – [Garaufis] I was not. – [Susman] Judge Daniels. – Well wait a second, I lost any willingness
to engage in that process as a result of that. – Well you know my attitude
is I do what I think I’m good at and in most cases if you want, a lot of lawyers say they want the judge to experiment, they just
don’t want the judge experiment on their case. (group chuckling) okay they want you to do
what you think you’re good at and get it done. I try to figure out one of three things, is it gonna save any time? Is it gonna make the experience
any better for the juror? Or is it gonna affect the result? Is it gonna make it more likely the result is going to be the right result? And you know I realize
that you know there’s not any right and wrong ways of doing things, even in law there’s no
right and wrong answers there’s instances that work
and there are instances that don’t, you know I
try to make the stuff that work that I do. I find lawyers are very
inefficient in most cases about it, I think you know
I remember one experience after the lawyer finished
voir dereing the juror, the juror said you’re right
I agree I can’t be fair. I cannot stand you. (group laughing) it’s all the juror said, the juror was perfectly fine before that but by the time we got to voir dere. – [Susman] Well that’s
of course I might suggest that’s a pretty good thing
for that lawyer to find out. (group laughing) – But you know what the lawyer would, in my, it’s not
something that he just found out it’s something he created
that he could have won the case if he hadn’t
gone through the voir dere experience, very good lawyer
knew how to cross examine, knew how to do direct examination, knew how to argue and,
but the question is, is that is it really going
to make the result better or is it going to make
the experience better? – It’s bigger than that
Judge Daniels because there is social science out there
that shows that jurors are more likely to answer
honestly questions of the lawyers than questions from the
judge because they see the judge as an authority
figure and they wanna please the judge, so
they say what they think the judge wants to hear. – [Susman] You can barely
consider it if all my instruction. – Yeah and especially in the
area of trying to tease out implicit bias, there has
been some social science that says jury, jurors are
more likely to admit to biases or to acknowledge certain
stereotypes with questioning from lawyers than they are from judges. So I have, you know I mean there’s a lot of bad voir dere out there by lawyers, true, but I let them do it under you know strict
time limits and I think it’s important to not
just say we do it better which I agree we do,
but you want the client to feel that the jury
was selected in a fair and impartial manner and
you want to make sure you’re getting all the
issues out from the jurors which won’t necessarily happen
if it’s just judge question. – And that’s fine but in
90% or more of the cases, it doesn’t make a difference
if you do it well. The question is whether you do it well. – [Lasnik] Every judge thinks
they do it well though. – No every lawyer thinks
he does it well too so I’m not judging who’s better at it, I’m just saying that it
doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s adding something to the. – [Lasnik] My problem is. – [Susman] What it may add is what, every trial
lawyer says that litigants accept averting to the jury
better than they accept a judgment of judge in a bench trial or a decision of arbitrators. They somehow, if they lose a jury trial, they blame their lawyer for
not submitting the right case. If they lose a bench trial, the judge was corrupt or stupid
or some other excuse. So there is an advantage
I think to the public and our system of
justice to have decisions that are accepted by
the litigants you know, okay I lost. Let me, on the subject
of voir dere so to just cover it, a lot of federal judge, now my experience is about
50% of the federal judges are like you, allowing lawyers
to have 30 minutes aside voir dere and some of ’em say you better not make any
argument ’cause I’ll stop you and don’t give these
long leading questions, you can ask questions to
people for 30 minutes each which is not a long time
in a week-long trial. But judges have told me around the country I tell lawyers I’m gonna do this and they say, no judge you do it. I don’t wanna do it and the
comment being the judges think the lawyers don’t know how to do it, they have not been trained. And you can go anywhere in the country, I challenge you to find a CLE program a PLR or anywhere else
where teaches young lawyers how to voir dere, it’s not taught, it’s not offered. So no wonder we have lawyers that say or are not unhappy about
the judges doing it. But that brings me to
the issue of training of the advocate because I do think that we will lose jury trials
if we don’t continue to train young lawyers to conduct them and of course with fewer
and fewer jury trials, two per judge in the country, there are fewer opportunities
to conduct that training. So let’s talk about what
we might do together, the bench and the bar to help one thing that has been suggested
that has become very popular around the country is what’s called, the young lawyer rule and
I’m sure I know you’ve heard about it, the once
that were at our workshop which is a rule that
basically says if you are a young lawyer or a lawyer
who is not experienced, and tell the judge, notify the judge that you will be conducting the
oral argument on a motion, we will give you a hearing, otherwise I’m likely to do it on the papers. And this apparently is
having the effect among the judges who announce that kind of rule and there are dozens of
versions and flavors of it but getting young lawyers
on their feet to make substantive arguments before the judge so have any of you thought
about experimenting with that? – I mean we’ve done that. Judge Weinstein encouraged
that and a lot of other judges have followed that rule
but you got to be careful. Look you can’t, I’m not
gonna tell the lawyers how they’re supposed to please
their client and how they’re supposed to do for their client. You know maybe this
argument requires department to argue it, I don’t know
I don’t know who’s going to do an effective job of it. I would encourage them to
get the young lawyers to have that experience but. – [Susman] It enables us, it
gives us cover with our clients in a way, I can go. – Yeah it doesn’t and maybe it’s because of
the side of the case that you ordinarily find yourself on,
you’re a plaintiff lawyer. The defense bar is, out of which I come, is pretty adamant that
they’re upset with this rule and not because they
don’t like training their young lawyers I mean I was in a big firm in another era a long time
ago in a galaxy far away but I got a lot of experience
in court because in those days it was economically feasible
for partners to send me down especially on cases where
they hated the client or they hated the opponent or they hated the judge and
they sent me down on all three and I got to do a lot of stuff on my feet. Today, what I hear from my
former partners and others is we’d really like to
have more opportunities for our young lawyers but
at the rates we’re charging, with whatever it is we have on the table, the client is adamant you
are the lawyer I hired, you’re the lawyer who’s
gonna stand on his feet and you’re the lawyer who’s
gonna argue to that judge. No young lawyer is gonna
lose my point for me. It’s not training any more. – [Susman] But the rule
just simply says if it’s gonna be a young lawyer, I’m gonna provide an opportunity for oral argument because it’s part of the training. It doesn’t mean I’m not
gonna consider fairly other motions or something,
I just may not have, I don’t need to hear from- – I don’t have oral argument
on 98% of my motions, but in the 2% where I need it or want it or will profit from it,
if the client doesn’t want the young lawyer to
argue no matter how badly I’d like to hear from her, if the client doesn’t want it to
happen, it’s not my place to say it must happen. – And see I’m just the
opposite, most of the cases I probably do have oral argument and I’ll let the lawyers
we heard and if they want to bring in the clients
to sit in the front row and listen to the
arguments then that’s fine. – [Susman] How are we
gonna give trial training to young lawyers? What’s the answer, Judge Furman? – So I do have that kind of rule and or, I dunno if it’s a kind
of rule but my rules say that don’t ordinarily hold
oral argument on motions but if a party indicates
that a younger lawyer would argue it, that that would be
a factor in my consideration of whether to hold oral
argument so in that regard I do have such a rule. I think, I mean some of it I do think that the number of lawyers
that can ably try cases, I mean I don’t have a
comparative sense because back in the 60s that you
invoked I did not exist but I do think that that
number is dwindling is my sense from talking to folks. I think more training and
you know I think partners like you encouraging
associates to take the lead on things, I mean
candidly in my experience clients often make
ill-advised choices on saying that the partners should
handle something because it’s the associate that
has done the research and has actually, you
know knows the witness, knows the case law, knows
the facts and is really the one who’s feeding the
partner the post-it notes to say this is the
question they should ask. Let the associate ask the
question, they’re gonna do a better job. – [Susman] Some things I need, so I’m a fairly experienced trial lawyer but I for a long time
kind of lived by the idea that in Texas, trial lawyers
were sole gunslingers, you walked into court with your boots the jury noticed you, you had a legal pad, not a bunch of associates sitting around, because you didn’t want
people to think you had an army, although you did have an army, they were back in the hotel,
they weren’t in court. I have come to realize over
time by talking to jurors and judges like you that that’s stupid. Jurors actually like to
see a bunch of different lawyers asking questions. They do not get upset if
thyre four or five lawyers at the counsel table. I mean some of the rules,
there’s a rule in the eastern district in the federal
court, eastern district that says lawyers cannot
split final argument. Okay, why isn’t that a stupid rule? I mean frankly, I think
it’s a totally stupid rule, if you allow lawyer an hour
as long as the time’s limited they wanna split it any way they want but we need help from you to tell us you know it’d be real be
nice if you had four lawyers out there and you give them
each equal jobs at trial. The jury would appreciate
it, I would appreciate it, my law clerks woulda appreciate it, you’re shaking your head? – No I just had such a trial. It was a criminal trial
where there is no vanishing criminal jury trial, and it was a criminal trial,
it was a big high-stakes trial and I had, I think there were teams of at least five lawyers
on the two defendants and I heard from every single
lawyer in that courtroom and took note of it, it was great. It was great. I don’t think any of us is opposed to it, it’s just that we’re aware
or we’re being made aware, perhaps they’re aligned to
us, these members of the bar saying that they really
can’t give the opportunities when they’re really hoarding
them for themselves. I don’t know, but we are hearing
that there are constraints on having judges announce, yeah I asked a young lawyer
a young woman lawyer to stand up and argue a
point and she went like this. And looked at the older male
partner like a frightened deer and he said, I’ll be doing this. – [Susman] Thank you very
much judges and Mr Connolly, thank you for coming it’s,
we’re out of time now and I hope it’s been fun for
you as it’s been fun for me, I love each of these ’cause
I learn different things. Thank you very much for doing this. (group clapping)